Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dear Readers,We have reached an important milestone now that the Deakin Review is in its third year of publication. To wit, we have published well over 200 reviews, our readership continues to grow, and we’ve been delighted to receive so many compliments about the overall quality and appeal of our online content.For the entire month of September 2013, we displayed two full-scale exhibitions of Deakin books in the Humanities and Social Sciences and Coutts Education Libraries at the University of Alberta. We relished this opportunity to show more than 100 books, accompanied by excerpts from the corresponding reviews, to the campus community, which further raised the profile of our quarterly journal. In fact, many students have since asked about opportunities to submit book reviews to our editors for consideration.As many of you know, the Deakin Review was originally conceived as an in-house publication that would publish content from our own librarians and support staff, but we now believe that this is a good time to expand our pool of reviewers to ensure that our journal continues to grow and thrive. So, if you are thinking of submitting a review, please contact me by email and I’ll be pleased to review the submission process with you. Our editorial team will still be comprised of librarians from the University of Alberta Libraries—a unique point of distinction that sets us apart from other journals with similar content—but we will begin accepting well-written reviews of recently published children’s books from anyone, effective immediately.In other news, we recently decided that the Deakin Review should transition to a peer-reviewed journal within 18 months. This means that we’ll continue to publish thoughtful and well-written book reviews just as we have been doing, but in due course we’ll also include a peer-reviewed article in each issue about practitioner, cultural, or social issues relating to children’s books (e.g., how children’s books are used in the classroom; readers’ advisory services offered by YA librarians; language development rates for young children who use multimedia e-books). We’re looking forward to publishing excellent scholarship in these areas, so please contact our content editors if you would like to submit a paper for peer review and we’ll be pleased to discuss whether your paper meets the criteria for publication in our journal.It’s exciting to consider that we aspire to peer-reviewed status, which would mean that our content would be indexed by full-text scholarly databases for multidisciplinary research. Clearly, this is an ideal time to contribute to the growth and success of our journal, but rest assured that we will continue to help readers select children’s books by looking for excellence in writing, design, and illustration. Our main focus is, and always will be, to handpick the books that will appeal to children, young adults, and all those interested in children’s books.Enjoy our new issue!Best wishes,Robert DesmaraisManaging Editor
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,130 | 0,223 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,014 |
| Communication savante | 0,043 | 0,017 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,017 | 0,034 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,020 | 0,041 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».